Viewing 6 posts - 1 through 6 (of 6 total)
  • Author
  • #48310

    Seeking advice regarding resident personal trainers using common property to conduct their training business – i.e. gym, showers etc.

    Is anyone aware of any legislation which prohibits or permits such activity?

    Thanks in advance.


    There is no legislation, per se, but this could be covered by a by-law.  However, you would have to be careful how you worded it, depending on whether:

    • The personal trainer is coming into the building to train residents, or
    • The personal trainer lives in the building and is using the facilities to train their clients who are might be resident and non-resident, or
    • The non-resident personal trainer is coming into the building to train a resident and bringing in other non-resident clients to train at the same time, or
    • Some other combination of the above.

    The critical question is, where’s the harm?  If a PT is using communal equipment to train clients and that doesn’t interfere with other owners wanting to use the equipment, then is that any worse than someone letting their apartment, and by extension, common property facilities, to non-residents?

    But if there is a problem, create a by-law that defines how and when PTs can use the gym.


    I am a Qld resident.
    I was wanting an answer to this very question, so a timely post.

    I used to live in a building with a very good Gym, owner residents used the Gym and several had their personal trainer come to the Gym and supervise their workouts. I have no problem with that, assume the resident paid the Trainer.
    They did not use the Gym to train anyone who was not a resident and did not promote the service, however word of mouth within the complex, more residents used the trainers services for their individual needs.

    However I now live in a different building as an Owner, I have noticed a personal trainer on 3 occasions meeting people outside the building entrance and going to the Gym, not sure if this person is an Owner or Tenant in the building.

    However it would appear that he is bringing people that are not residents and training them in the Building Gym assume getting paid.

    I do not think this is right, as well as them making money using the Gym, there is also the issue of Insurance and Public Liability.

    If the person they are training is not a resident, they are putting the Body Corp at risk of a claim.
    Assume he would not have registered any personal Public Liability certificate of insurance to the BC.

    I would be interested in your comments, although I have my suspicions about what this person is doing, I was going to bring up at our next meeting for investigation.


    I would class only the first scenario — i e “the personal trainer is coming into the building to train residents”— as acceptable.  The second is bad, and the third even worse.  Tharra’s scheme probably already has a by-law prohibiting obstructing other owners’ access to common property except on a temporary and non-recurrent basis.  That should cover the situation, but a specific by-law could always be developed and registered (at a cost, given you would probably want a solicitor to draft it and make it as lawyer-proof as possible).

    • This reply was modified 1 month, 3 weeks ago by .

    I think a lot of it has to do with the level of disruption of other people’s training.  I know a PT who occasionally trains people in her block’s under-used gym. Nobody seems to mind, but then she isn’t bringing in half a dozen non-residents for a group class, and taking up all the space and equipment.


    Thanks for all the replies. We have two cases:

    a) resident bringing in their own trainer – no problems. Same as kids being taught to swim in the pool, or musical instruments in the library. Fair as the trainer isn’t using the equipment, a resident is.

    b) residents who are also a personal trainers bringing in clients 1 by 1 using the gym for blocks of 3-4 hours. This prevents others residents from using the equipment. We have had several complaints saying that XYZ machine is monopolised by personal trainers.

    It is behaviour b) we wish to curb & also have the same queries re: public liability & insurance. From here it’s like the gym version of AirBNB, i.e. privatised profits with collective costs & prevents residents use of facilities.

Viewing 6 posts - 1 through 6 (of 6 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.